Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010277922025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4051/2025 AMINA KHATUN W/O SIKANDAR ALI R/O IVLL- SADHUCHAR, P.S. BILSIPARA DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS, J SINGPHO,A GHOSAL,MR. A BHARDWAZ Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 06-02-2026 Heard Mr. M. Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for Page No.# 2/7 bail as she is behind bars since 13.11.2024 in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 255/2024 u/s 21(b)/22(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR along with the Case Diary has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Biswas that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. She got arrested in connection with the case on 13.11.2024 and since last 1 year 2 months and 24 days she is in custody. Case has already been charge-sheeted and charge is also framed on 30.07.2025. But, out of 9 nos. of cited witnesses, the prosecution could not examine any of the witnesses till date. 5. Mr. Biswas further submitted that as the prosecution could not examine any of the witnesses till date in spite of lapse of 1 year 2 months 24 days, there is no probability of completion of the trial with a reasonable period and hence considering her prolonged incarceration she may be released on bail. 6. Mr. Biswas further submitted that the grounds of arrest were also not communicated to the present petitioner in a language which she understands and from the record it is seen that she is an illiterate lady who may understand the Assamese language but she is not at all acquainted with the English language under which the communication was made to her while issuing notice u/s 47 BNSS. 7. Mr. Biswas further submitted that the grounds of arrest were also not communicated to the family members or relatives of the petitioner and on perusal of the record also it is seen that the Investigating Officer only sent WT Message to the jurisdictional police station and there is no evidence at all that the family members of the petitioner was communicated u/s 48A of BNSS. In Page No.# 3/7 that context he also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Vihan Kumar (supra) wherein in the second para of the judgment it is specifically held that the notice u/s 48A BNSS also to be issued to the family members of the relative of the accused/petitioner communicating the grounds of arrest. In that regard he specifically emphasised in para 3 of the judgment which reads as under:- “The purpose of inserting Section 50A of the CrPC, making it obligatory on the person making arrest to inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives or persons nominated by the arrested person, is to ensure that they would able to take immediate and prompt actions to secure the release of the arrested person as permissible under the law. The arrested person, because of his detention, may not have immediate and easy access to the legal process for securing his release, which would otherwise be available to the friends, relatives and such nominated persons by way of engaging lawyers, briefing them to secure release of the detained person on bail at the earliest. Therefore, the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to the detenue, and in addition to his relatives as mentioned above is not merely a formality but to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal.” 8. Mr. Biswas further submitted that there are four accused/persons, out of which one had already died during the investigation and two other accused/persons were already granted bail by this Court and she is the only accused who is languishing in the jail hazot at present. Considering her case in the same footing the present petitioner may be granted bail on the ground of parity. She is the permanent resident of the addressed locality and will appear in the Court on each and every date as required by the Court. To substantiate his plea the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Biswas also relied on the Page No.# 4/7 following judgments:- i. Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228. ii. Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. iii. Mihir Rajesh Shan v. State of Maharahstra and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356. 9. Mr. Biswas also submitted that the Division Bench of this Court also considered the bail application of the accused/applicant considering that violation of Article 22(1) entitles an accused/person to go on bail. 10. Mr. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that the accused/petitioner was provided with the ground of arrest at the time of issuing notice u/s 47 BNSS. However, it is an admitted fact that the language in the notice was written in English but being illiterate lady even if it was written in Assamese language she would not be able to read the same. However, from the materials in the Case Diary it is seen that she was made to understand the grounds of arrest. Further, he submitted that the W.T. Mesage was sent to the jurisdictional police station for intimation to her family members as the petitioner got arrested in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 255/2024 and she is a resident of district Dhubri and hence there may not be any source to communicate with the family members directly from the police station. Mr. Das further submitted that from the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 13.11.2024 also it reveals that the accused/persons were made aware about their legal rights and they accordingly stated they will engage their own counsel. Thus from the order itself it is seen that they were explained about the grounds Page No.# 5/7 of arrest and only after satisfaction the accused/persons were sent in police/judicial custody. Mr. Das further submitted that there is no material also to prove that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner of not informing her family members only by issuing notice to her in the language English. She was well aware about the offence she committed and it is a case of commercial quantity and hence the rigour of Section 37 will also attract in this case. He further submitted that considering the materials in the Case Diary it cannot be held that she is not involved in the alleged offence and at the same time there cannot be any reasonable believe that she will not commit a similar offence in future. Mr. Das accordingly raised objection and submitted that this is not a fit case to grant bail to the present accused/petitioner. 11. Hearing the submission made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the Annexure-5 along with the petition as well as the case record. It is an admitted position that accused/petitioner is in custody for last more than 1 year 2 months and it is also fact that till date the prosecution could not examine any witnesses though the charge was framed on 30.07.2025. Thus, it can be seen that considerable period will be taken for the completion of the trial. 12. It is also seen that there was a compliance of Section 47 BNSS and the petitioner was also provided with the grounds of arrest. However, the notice was in English language and the petitioner is an illiterate lady who only put her thumb impression on the notice issued to her. But the submission made by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that she was made to understand the communication in a language she understands can not out rightly rejected. Thus it is seen that there is a compliance of Section 47 BNSS whereby the accused/petitioner was intimated about her grounds of arrest. Page No.# 6/7 13. It is a fact that one WT Message was sent to jurisdictional police station wherein the grounds of arrest was also mentioned. But, it is a fact that no notice u/s 48 BNSS was directly sent to her family members. But, the main purpose of issuing notice u/s 48 BNSS is for informing the friends and relatives is to ensure that they would able to take immediate and prompt action to secure the release of arrested persons. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Vihan Kumar (supra) also expressed the view that the purpose of intimating the family members is to take the immediate and easy access to the legal process for securing his release which may not be possible for the accused. But, here in the instant case it is seen that though there is no direct communication to the family members of the accused/petitioner but, IO took the necessary step in issuing WT Message to the concerned police station for onward transmission of the information to his family members. It is also seen from the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the day of production of the accused/persons they have jointly filed a Bail Application No. 6336/2024 and after hearing the learned counsel for the accused/persons and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor the same was rejected and disposed of by the learned Trial Court below. Thus, it is seen that on the very first day of their production they knew about the grounds of arrest, engaged their counsel for legal help and also filed their bail application. 14. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegation brought against the present accused/petitioner and also considering the materials available in the Case Diary wherefrom it is seen that there are sufficient materials against the accused/petitioner in commission of the said offence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage and the same stands rejected. Page No.# 7/7 15. However, the learned Special Judge is hereby directed to take all endeavours to record the evidence of the witnesses within a reasonable period and will also make to endeavour to dispose of the case accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant